Nukemap(nukemap.org)
nukemap.org
Nukemap
https://nukemap.org/nukemap/
123 comments
The vast majority of nukes are "counterforce" - they're targeted against military targets, primarily the enemy's own nuclear arsenal. Strategic reasoning for this is pretty simple: only by destroying the enemy's weapons can you prevent the destruction of your own citizens, and destroying the enemy's citizens is pretty cold comfort if all of yours are dead. I've heard that each Minuteman 3 silo in the U.S. has multiple nukes targeted on it, because they want to be really sure that they destroy that missile if it hasn't left yet. Many of these warheads are SLBMs, where flight times are only a couple minutes, so that they can hit as soon as it looks like a launch is imminent.
After ICBM silos, primary targets are (roughly in order):
1) Runways longer than 7000 feet, long enough for a B-52 to take off and land.
2) Naval bases, primarily those involved in the basing and maintenance of ballistic missile subs.
3) Command and control facilities of the U.S. military and government. This includes much of Washington D.C, the Pentagon, major government institutions like the CIA and NSA, and secondary military bases where leadership might relocate to.
4) Port facilities, which may become naval bases in a war.
5) Refineries and oil fields.
6) Concentration of heavy industry where military equipment might be made. Think of metro Detroit auto factories, or Caterpillar's factory, or Hendy Ironworks in Sunnyvale.
7) Office parks where significant brain trusts are located. You can bet that Livermore, Apple's headquarters, and the Googleplex are on a target list. (The Googleplex is actually in the blast radius for Moffett Field, so it may not need to be a separate target.) Also major universities.
8) Major city centers.
If you live in a suburban bedroom community, there is a very high chance of you surviving an initial attack unscathed. Nuke blast radiuses are often surprisingly small, relative to metro areas, and there is no reason for Russia to target a lightly-populated bedroom community 10 miles outside of the city.
After ICBM silos, primary targets are (roughly in order):
1) Runways longer than 7000 feet, long enough for a B-52 to take off and land.
2) Naval bases, primarily those involved in the basing and maintenance of ballistic missile subs.
3) Command and control facilities of the U.S. military and government. This includes much of Washington D.C, the Pentagon, major government institutions like the CIA and NSA, and secondary military bases where leadership might relocate to.
4) Port facilities, which may become naval bases in a war.
5) Refineries and oil fields.
6) Concentration of heavy industry where military equipment might be made. Think of metro Detroit auto factories, or Caterpillar's factory, or Hendy Ironworks in Sunnyvale.
7) Office parks where significant brain trusts are located. You can bet that Livermore, Apple's headquarters, and the Googleplex are on a target list. (The Googleplex is actually in the blast radius for Moffett Field, so it may not need to be a separate target.) Also major universities.
8) Major city centers.
If you live in a suburban bedroom community, there is a very high chance of you surviving an initial attack unscathed. Nuke blast radiuses are often surprisingly small, relative to metro areas, and there is no reason for Russia to target a lightly-populated bedroom community 10 miles outside of the city.
"Fun" fact: Seattle is 20 miles (as the crow flies) from Naval Base Kitsap which is the home port for all of the pacific fleet of Trident ballistic missile submarines.
From which I conclude that unless they make the mistake at looking at one of the explosions, in which case they'll be blinded (probably temporarily, but I'm not sure) or they're injured by flying glass, Seattle residents will not be immediately killed in an attack on Kitsap, but if the wind is blowing in the wrong direction or it rains at the wrong time they could easily be killed by the fallout.
Do you have a source for this? It seems (coldly and terrifyingly) sound from logical perspective, at least to the extent that "logical" is a word that can be applied to something that threatens the entire human race.
But I'm curious how much if any official doctrine has become public.
But I'm curious how much if any official doctrine has become public.
If you live in a suburban bedroom community, there
is a very high chance of you surviving an initial
attack unscathed.
>Do you have a source for this?
I don't have sources, but the list is very similar to the list I would write. I have no work experience in the field, but since the end of the cold war, my probability of nuclear war has always been much higher than most English-language commentators, so I've been keeping an ear out for information.
I would add that runways over 7000 feet would be such a high priority that even straight stretches of highway longer than that (which can be used as improvised runways) will probably be targeted (and some sections of the US interstate highway system built in the 1950s were made straight precisely so that they could be used as runways during a war).
Also, it is at least possible that they would attack the US, but not with everything they got (at least at first) and if they do that, then oil refineries would be much higher on my list than on the list in the grandparent comment because if they do decide to attack, it is probably because they (the leaders of Russia's security apparatus) are about to lose power in which case it is likely that they blame the sanctions the West has just imposed on them as the primary cause of their immanent loss of power -- and their attacking our oil refineries will have an effect on the US much like very severe sanctions would.
I don't have sources, but the list is very similar to the list I would write. I have no work experience in the field, but since the end of the cold war, my probability of nuclear war has always been much higher than most English-language commentators, so I've been keeping an ear out for information.
I would add that runways over 7000 feet would be such a high priority that even straight stretches of highway longer than that (which can be used as improvised runways) will probably be targeted (and some sections of the US interstate highway system built in the 1950s were made straight precisely so that they could be used as runways during a war).
Also, it is at least possible that they would attack the US, but not with everything they got (at least at first) and if they do that, then oil refineries would be much higher on my list than on the list in the grandparent comment because if they do decide to attack, it is probably because they (the leaders of Russia's security apparatus) are about to lose power in which case it is likely that they blame the sanctions the West has just imposed on them as the primary cause of their immanent loss of power -- and their attacking our oil refineries will have an effect on the US much like very severe sanctions would.
> If you live in a suburban bedroom community, there is a very high chance of you surviving an initial attack unscathed.
"Unscathed" is a questionable term here. Sure you likely don't get vaporized in the initial blast, but given grounds strikes, which to my understanding are more likely in a modern nuclear exchange you likely get enough radiation from the fallout you wish you had been vaporized. Depending on prevailing winds this can be true for a shocking distance from the impact site.
"Unscathed" is a questionable term here. Sure you likely don't get vaporized in the initial blast, but given grounds strikes, which to my understanding are more likely in a modern nuclear exchange you likely get enough radiation from the fallout you wish you had been vaporized. Depending on prevailing winds this can be true for a shocking distance from the impact site.
Is there a reason why Russia should target America before targeting Europe? Wouldn't it have strategical advantages for them to target NATO bases in Poland or Turkey and/or Germany?
It makes more "sense" for Russia to destroy as many nukes as possible in case of a nuclear war first strike. Poland, Turkey and Germany doesn't have many nukes to speak of.
There are american nuclear weapons at least in Germany. So this could be a target, couldn't it?
Sure, but as far as I know they are all at one spot and there's "only" 20 of them. So russia needs basically one nuke to disable the nuclear treat from Germany. In comparison the US has thousands nukes all over the country and nukes with tenfold power.
I recently learned about the "nuclear sponge" strategy. The US has a bunch of ICMBs stationed in remote areas in hopes of drawing nuclear strikes to those areas, away from population centers[0].
[0] https://kottke.org/20/10/americas-nuclear-sponge
[0] https://kottke.org/20/10/americas-nuclear-sponge
However nice that sounds, that is unlikely to happen.
History shows that targeting civilians is by far the most effective to make the opposition concede.
History shows that targeting civilians is by far the most effective to make the opposition concede.
Sure, but isn't the problem "second strike": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_strike
With nukes, you gotta stop your nuclear armed opponent from killing you second, first.
With nukes, you gotta stop your nuclear armed opponent from killing you second, first.
With nuclear weapons you know that getting all enemy weapons is a slim chance. So you aim for maximum destruction of the enemy.
If I had to decide on targets I would go for max destruction in terms of lives. In the initial impact and in the long term. So the biggest cities, nuclear power plants, water supply, food production.
As said when usi g this option I don't expect my people to survive as well.
If I had to decide on targets I would go for max destruction in terms of lives. In the initial impact and in the long term. So the biggest cities, nuclear power plants, water supply, food production.
As said when usi g this option I don't expect my people to survive as well.
[deleted]
Well if you go for maximum number of lives instead of nukes, then the nuclear answer to russia will likely be so strong that it really doesn't matter.
> History shows that targeting civilians is by far the most effective to make the opposition concede.
Judging by how WW2 went, history seems to show the exact opposite.
Judging by how WW2 went, history seems to show the exact opposite.
A Nuclear exchange is not really to make the other side concede. Both sides know if they fire nukes the other side will respond in minutes with their own massive salvo. The initial strike is essentially to render as much of the enemies military ineffective especially their nukes. Surviving for a second strike is not a given. In the event of a nuclear strike I think both sides understand that there wont be very many people or leadership to concede. Hence the term Mutually Assured Destruction.
It really doesn't matter, and honestly you probably want to die in the first blast.
If there is full scale nuclear war there seems to be consensus that there will most likely be full breakdown of normal society and probably a nuclear winter. Either one of those would mean your job is probably long gone if you are an HN reader, food is going to be scarce and there is no police to protect you anymore. Basically fallout on steroids, but with less mutants and also less food.
Personally I don't think the human race will go extinct, but the ones that do survive are not going to live in comfy modern societies anymore. And if you are living somewhat close to a nuclear strike you are going to miss that hospital when radiation sickness sets in.
If there is full scale nuclear war there seems to be consensus that there will most likely be full breakdown of normal society and probably a nuclear winter. Either one of those would mean your job is probably long gone if you are an HN reader, food is going to be scarce and there is no police to protect you anymore. Basically fallout on steroids, but with less mutants and also less food.
Personally I don't think the human race will go extinct, but the ones that do survive are not going to live in comfy modern societies anymore. And if you are living somewhat close to a nuclear strike you are going to miss that hospital when radiation sickness sets in.
Each to their own but I have never understood this way of thinking. I have kids, I would want them to survive and to have a chance at life even if its not the shiny modern one. I would also want them to have kids and so on. Life would obviously be hard but it would still be life. Death comes soon enough for everyone anyway. Obviously the best outcome is no nukes at all.
I think the difference is I don’t have kids. I would like to think I want kids but there is no way I can afford having kids especially given I’m not sure if I can even afford to retire.
I don’t understand the way of thinking of people millennials and later who aren’t at least millionaires who choose to (not counting accidental pregnancies) have children.
I don’t understand the way of thinking of people millennials and later who aren’t at least millionaires who choose to (not counting accidental pregnancies) have children.
I'm a millennial and have also chosen to not have kids (vasectomy) for similar reasons - it's expensive, the world feels unstable, and mental illness is pretty bad for both me and wife. However I don't fault people who highly value having kids, and I think it's an extremely human trait to want them with a higher priority than anything else.
In many parts of the country the people have voted in a government that doesn't let you starve even if you have children.
You could choose to live somewhere where you don't have to be a millionaire to have children. Lots of people move out of San Francisco around the time they are starting a family, for example.
Incidentally, these areas might also be less likely to be hit by nuclear bombs.
Incidentally, these areas might also be less likely to be hit by nuclear bombs.
If I didn't have kids I think I would still want to live. In this scenario worst case I could voluntarily check out. You don't need to be rich to have kids friend. Don't get me wrong they are definitely a cost of living increase but all they really need is attention and to feel loved. Everything else takes care of itself. Of course they need food and shelter but housing is affordable away from major urban areas.
This is not to underplay the difficulty raising kids on a below average wage job.
This is not to underplay the difficulty raising kids on a below average wage job.
I'm a millennial with kids. I've been predicting that the world ends in nuclear holocaust for the last 15-20 years or so, since I was a teenager. My wife and I had the "If the future is going to be as bad as you predict, why bring someone new into this world?" conversation before we chose to have kids.
The simple reason is that if we don't, we lose by default. Survival is the Great Game, the one that has been going on throughout history and will continue to go on for as long as life continues to exist. In the U.S. we've been lucky enough to not need to play the game for the last 3 generations or so, with survival basically assured, and so a lot of people have forgotten how to play. In its absence, we've made up a lot of other games, like "Will I get more karma on Hacker News?" or "Will I get promoted at work?" or "Will I get rich by picking the right cryptocurrency?" But it's worth remembering that these are games, on some level their results don't matter (certainly not if there's a nuclear holocaust), and we may be once again called on to play the Great Game again.
So I just try to be grateful that I don't have to play the survival game right now, while keeping perspective and remembering that that can change in an eyeblink, and trying to keep my wits and skills sharp enough that I could pick it up again if needed.
The simple reason is that if we don't, we lose by default. Survival is the Great Game, the one that has been going on throughout history and will continue to go on for as long as life continues to exist. In the U.S. we've been lucky enough to not need to play the game for the last 3 generations or so, with survival basically assured, and so a lot of people have forgotten how to play. In its absence, we've made up a lot of other games, like "Will I get more karma on Hacker News?" or "Will I get promoted at work?" or "Will I get rich by picking the right cryptocurrency?" But it's worth remembering that these are games, on some level their results don't matter (certainly not if there's a nuclear holocaust), and we may be once again called on to play the Great Game again.
So I just try to be grateful that I don't have to play the survival game right now, while keeping perspective and remembering that that can change in an eyeblink, and trying to keep my wits and skills sharp enough that I could pick it up again if needed.
[deleted]
Survival instincts are strong tho, suicide would be a lot more prevalent in war zones and heavily impoverished regions if the will to live didn't most often prevail on terrible living situations. As horrifying as the thought of a nuclear collapse of civilization would be, I'm sure there would be something worth living for on the other side - assuming you're somewhere that remains remotely livable and don't die a week later from body melting radiation poisoning or from famine within two months... which I guess is likely in most places, maybe it's my non-urban Canadian bias and irrational optimism (I'm doubtful this scenario equates a carpet-atomic-bombing of Earth's surface) speaking.
> Would each city be targeted with one warhead, or blanketed with several over a large area?
It depends on your objective if you want to incinerate a target, maximize damage or produce maximum fallout.
Basically if you want to incinerate a small, hardened underground target you need to send a few nukes to have a high confidence level of success. If you want to damage a city and are OK with detonating in any part of the city then one might suffice. If you want fallout then you want an air burst to the West and let the Easterly winds spread the fallout.
Each missile has it’s own distance and accuracy calculations.
The author has another site called Missle Map that explores these scenarios in much more detail:
https://nukemap.org/missilemap/faq/
It depends on your objective if you want to incinerate a target, maximize damage or produce maximum fallout.
Basically if you want to incinerate a small, hardened underground target you need to send a few nukes to have a high confidence level of success. If you want to damage a city and are OK with detonating in any part of the city then one might suffice. If you want fallout then you want an air burst to the West and let the Easterly winds spread the fallout.
Each missile has it’s own distance and accuracy calculations.
The author has another site called Missle Map that explores these scenarios in much more detail:
https://nukemap.org/missilemap/faq/
> If you want fallout then you want an air burst to the West and let the Easterly winds spread the fallout.
This might be true, but I've heard speculation that a surface burst would produce more fallout. Their reasoning is that fallout from an air burst would have considerably less dirt or debris so it would (supposedly) remain airborne for a longer period of time. On the other hand, a surface burst would darn near vaporize anything in the blast radius, and all that newly created radioactive debris would fall much quicker.
My sources could be incorrect, so if you've got something that indicates otherwise I'd appreciate it if you could point me in the right direction. :-)
This might be true, but I've heard speculation that a surface burst would produce more fallout. Their reasoning is that fallout from an air burst would have considerably less dirt or debris so it would (supposedly) remain airborne for a longer period of time. On the other hand, a surface burst would darn near vaporize anything in the blast radius, and all that newly created radioactive debris would fall much quicker.
My sources could be incorrect, so if you've got something that indicates otherwise I'd appreciate it if you could point me in the right direction. :-)
Nukemap seems to agree that a surface detonation would irradiate a much wider area than an airburst.
I was into this topic awhile back, basically while nobody talks about the details, there are reports re the reactions of people when they learn of the details. And they are basically horrified, borderline traumatized, but cannot come up with another plan.
The number of missiles and warheads available are very high, and planners identify all sorts of targets and assign priority, etc. I would imagine that factored into that are significant operational failures, operators who refuse to act, etc.
I’d assume any military significant site, current or former industrial target, interesting infrastructure, etc would be targeted multiple times. In an area like NYC, Boston, DC, SFO, forget it. If you didn’t get vaporized, you’d probably wish you did.
The number of missiles and warheads available are very high, and planners identify all sorts of targets and assign priority, etc. I would imagine that factored into that are significant operational failures, operators who refuse to act, etc.
I’d assume any military significant site, current or former industrial target, interesting infrastructure, etc would be targeted multiple times. In an area like NYC, Boston, DC, SFO, forget it. If you didn’t get vaporized, you’d probably wish you did.
This is correct. Based on public statements, the record appears to be the Russian Don-2N battle management radar facility: in the 1998 revision of the SIOP, it had 69 consecutive warheads dedicated to its destruction [0].
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20201111203417/https://journals....
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20201111203417/https://journals....
Unless you are far far away (like NZ or Aus) you are better off dying instantly. Even far away, and even if there is no nuclear winter sort of result, the radiation and effects are likely get you as well. Volcanic dust can be pretty widespread (Krakatoa is likely bigger than all the nukes we have) but it's far more localized unlike a general nuclear exchange, plus the dust is likely to be both radioactive and contain all sorts of nasty volatilized chemicals.
Guessing there would be several aimed at each city of any size, and the targeted locations would be spread out a bit to maximize impact. If you're conducting an all-out nuclear assault you're probably not pulling any punches.
I was going to say there aren't enough warheads to target every city because:
>[The] United States and Russia have the vast majority of nuclear weaps, with 4,804 and 4,480 warheads stockpiled respectively. There are approximately 1,861 nukes spread over the rest of the world, between China, Israel, the U.K, Pakistan, and India. France has the largest number of nukes after the U.S. and Russia. [0]
However, there are only 326 cities with over 100k population in the US. [1]
It would not be hard to list out the most valuable US locations to destroy, government, business, and military, for either the goal of preventing C&C and/or for ending the civilization.
[0]https://www.fastcompany.com/3043219/how-many-nukes-are-there...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
>[The] United States and Russia have the vast majority of nuclear weaps, with 4,804 and 4,480 warheads stockpiled respectively. There are approximately 1,861 nukes spread over the rest of the world, between China, Israel, the U.K, Pakistan, and India. France has the largest number of nukes after the U.S. and Russia. [0]
However, there are only 326 cities with over 100k population in the US. [1]
It would not be hard to list out the most valuable US locations to destroy, government, business, and military, for either the goal of preventing C&C and/or for ending the civilization.
[0]https://www.fastcompany.com/3043219/how-many-nukes-are-there...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
I actually just recently read a report from the late 80s that discussed a couple of scenarios and likely distribution of nuclear targets in each one.
The best case scenario (in the context of a full scale nuclear war with Russia) was a couple hundred successfully detonated strikes. The eastern seaboard, and all the metropolitan areas on the west coast were smoking holes in the ground. Pretty much anywhere with a sufficiently large military base, or significant government presence was on the "likely destroyed" list. There were a lot of random inland areas, which I assumed were targeting silos.
Basically, even in the 400 bomb scenario, the Boise field office of the IRS becomes the nation's highest authority.
The best case scenario (in the context of a full scale nuclear war with Russia) was a couple hundred successfully detonated strikes. The eastern seaboard, and all the metropolitan areas on the west coast were smoking holes in the ground. Pretty much anywhere with a sufficiently large military base, or significant government presence was on the "likely destroyed" list. There were a lot of random inland areas, which I assumed were targeting silos.
Basically, even in the 400 bomb scenario, the Boise field office of the IRS becomes the nation's highest authority.
> However, there are only 326 cities with over 100k population in the US. [1]
Only using an definition of "city" that's based on arbitrary political boundaries:
> This list refers only to the population of individual municipalities within their defined limits; the populations of other municipalities considered suburbs of a central city are listed separately, and unincorporated areas within urban agglomerations are not included. Therefore, a different ranking is evident when considering U.S. metropolitan area populations.
Metropolitan statistical areas are probably the right thing to count, and there are 358 of those over 100k (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area) in the US. Since US urban areas are pretty sprawling, you'd probably need multiple strikes to fully destroy most of the large ones.
When I way playing with nukemap, it looked like with a single air-burst bomb aimed the the urban core, the destruction of wooden buildings wouldn't even make it to the inner-ring suburbs.
Only using an definition of "city" that's based on arbitrary political boundaries:
> This list refers only to the population of individual municipalities within their defined limits; the populations of other municipalities considered suburbs of a central city are listed separately, and unincorporated areas within urban agglomerations are not included. Therefore, a different ranking is evident when considering U.S. metropolitan area populations.
Metropolitan statistical areas are probably the right thing to count, and there are 358 of those over 100k (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area) in the US. Since US urban areas are pretty sprawling, you'd probably need multiple strikes to fully destroy most of the large ones.
When I way playing with nukemap, it looked like with a single air-burst bomb aimed the the urban core, the destruction of wooden buildings wouldn't even make it to the inner-ring suburbs.
> However, there are only 326 cities with over 100k population in the US.
Probably more than that across NATO, though. Not to mention that the US is in alliances other than NATO.
Probably more than that across NATO, though. Not to mention that the US is in alliances other than NATO.
Well Russia has about 6000 nukes so they could definitely afford to hit every major metro area in the west potentially dozens of times. Unless you live hundreds of miles from the nearest town I’d think it’s safe to assume you’d be dead, if not from a detonation from the onset radiation and / or climate catastrophe following the nuclear fallout
How many of those are MIRVs?
technically none because the count of 6000 nukes is the number of warheads not delivery vehicles.
This is assuming Russia is only targeting US. Note that in an all-out nuclear warfare scenario, Europe will be inevitably involved too. I doubt Russia would want to spend all their arsenal on a single combatant, that'd essentially ensure other nuclear states such as France/UK to attack them
> Well Russia has about 6000 nukes so they could definitely afford to hit every major metro area in the west potentially dozens of times.
Having 6000 nukes ≠ 6000 nukes with operational readiness. If nuclear war were to break out, it is extremely unlikely that they could successfully use more than 1000 of those.
Not that that should make anyone feel any better about the situation, because even 1 nuke is too many.
Having 6000 nukes ≠ 6000 nukes with operational readiness. If nuclear war were to break out, it is extremely unlikely that they could successfully use more than 1000 of those.
Not that that should make anyone feel any better about the situation, because even 1 nuke is too many.
> Well Russia has about 6000 nukes
But closer to 1500 operationally deployed, and if they should launch any significant number of them, a substantial portion of the rest of the operationally deployed nukes in the world will be landing in Russia targeted and destroying any capacity they have to use any they have that weren't ready and deployed in the first strike.
Which is why if they use any significant number, even as a first strike, it will largely be for a counterforce strike doing the same thing to other nuclear powers, because who wants to be in a bunker without usable nukes when the guys you just nuked are in their bunker with usable nukes.
But closer to 1500 operationally deployed, and if they should launch any significant number of them, a substantial portion of the rest of the operationally deployed nukes in the world will be landing in Russia targeted and destroying any capacity they have to use any they have that weren't ready and deployed in the first strike.
Which is why if they use any significant number, even as a first strike, it will largely be for a counterforce strike doing the same thing to other nuclear powers, because who wants to be in a bunker without usable nukes when the guys you just nuked are in their bunker with usable nukes.
As Ukrainian, who was very (pleasantly) surprised at ineptitude of Russian military I changed my mind about nuclear war recently...
Of course hindsight is always 20/20, but even before the war I had the arguments with some of my friends that modern Russia cannot produce anything at a modern world class level. How it can be possible if they pay 40k RUB to Senior Engineers working in military or space organizations, while you can get 90k RUB working as a "Sales Consultant" in electronics store. Add to this the record levels of corruption; inept leadership being assigned because of their political affiliation, rather than knowledge and experience (just check Rogozin) and you will find hard not to agree with me.
This incompetence manifests itself at all levels - starting from glorious leader Putin, who managed to convert pro-Russian Ukraine into the "NATO state" in less than 20 years; secret agents, who cannot kill a person without leaving a radioactive trace throughout the whole country and the success of "military operation" we see now.
Anyhow, obviously I'd prefer not to test my assumptions, but I believe that Russia has no hypersonic missiles - they planned to have it in production in summer, 2022 and we know what it means in Kremlin-speak. So far it's all cartoons, like their new 5th-gen aircrafts and MBTs. And I am quite confident that the vast majority of their warheads and missiles are long gone...
Of course hindsight is always 20/20, but even before the war I had the arguments with some of my friends that modern Russia cannot produce anything at a modern world class level. How it can be possible if they pay 40k RUB to Senior Engineers working in military or space organizations, while you can get 90k RUB working as a "Sales Consultant" in electronics store. Add to this the record levels of corruption; inept leadership being assigned because of their political affiliation, rather than knowledge and experience (just check Rogozin) and you will find hard not to agree with me.
This incompetence manifests itself at all levels - starting from glorious leader Putin, who managed to convert pro-Russian Ukraine into the "NATO state" in less than 20 years; secret agents, who cannot kill a person without leaving a radioactive trace throughout the whole country and the success of "military operation" we see now.
Anyhow, obviously I'd prefer not to test my assumptions, but I believe that Russia has no hypersonic missiles - they planned to have it in production in summer, 2022 and we know what it means in Kremlin-speak. So far it's all cartoons, like their new 5th-gen aircrafts and MBTs. And I am quite confident that the vast majority of their warheads and missiles are long gone...
The problem is that once you have rocket engines and refined uranium, a nuke is a blunt weapon, that is relatively easy to wield. Probably even a specially trained monkey can do that.
It probably depends on how the war escalated to a nuclear exchange and whether it's a first strike or a second strike. In a first strike, the goal would be to take out the enemy nuclear arsenal as quickly as possible ("counterforce") to prevent retaliation, so in that case we would hope that all or almost all of the warheads would be targeted at remote missile bases. But you need a large number of accurate missiles to do that, so if you don't have those you're stuck targeting cities ("countervalue") for deterrence.
It doesn't seem like the U.S, Russia, or China have a hardline commitment to any particular response. If there are tit-for-tat attempts at limited escalation and deescalation, they need to be flexible.
Regardless, you need multiple warheads per target for reliability reasons, so if there's a massive nuclear war, you can probably expect a quick death rather than a slow one.
It doesn't seem like the U.S, Russia, or China have a hardline commitment to any particular response. If there are tit-for-tat attempts at limited escalation and deescalation, they need to be flexible.
Regardless, you need multiple warheads per target for reliability reasons, so if there's a massive nuclear war, you can probably expect a quick death rather than a slow one.
You forgot about the Nuclear Submarines. They will ensure any first strike nation will not be be around after destroying their adversary.
[deleted]
I'm actually in the middle of working on a resource for that exact thing: https://ae.studio/same-day-skunkworks/risk-of-nuclear-disast...
we're collecting better sources, but eventually you should be able to visualize a heatmap if you will of locations at higher risk.
We're working to add variables like wind travel direction, known military bases, etc. - super speculative, but I think it's better than what currently exists.
we're collecting better sources, but eventually you should be able to visualize a heatmap if you will of locations at higher risk.
We're working to add variables like wind travel direction, known military bases, etc. - super speculative, but I think it's better than what currently exists.
From my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong):
Bunker targets (mostly ICBM silos, heavily shielded targets like the bunkers under the White House, etc) would be targeted with a surface burst because bunkers would withstand air bursts.
Soft targets like airports, major cities, factories, ports, etc would be targeted using air bursts to maximize the destruction by preventing the shock wave and direct radiation from being shielded by geography and buildings.
Bunker targets (mostly ICBM silos, heavily shielded targets like the bunkers under the White House, etc) would be targeted with a surface burst because bunkers would withstand air bursts.
Soft targets like airports, major cities, factories, ports, etc would be targeted using air bursts to maximize the destruction by preventing the shock wave and direct radiation from being shielded by geography and buildings.
I thought about this too! Surely Gary, IN wouldn't be targeted, but with biggest steel mills in the US, maybe it would?
There's a well known paradox in nuclear strategy where counter-force targeting is actually more "humane", but it requires the nation to keep more nukes in service.
On the other hand, a small stockpile will deter your enemy only if you are willing to use your stockpile on your enemy's population centers.
On the other hand, a small stockpile will deter your enemy only if you are willing to use your stockpile on your enemy's population centers.
Most probably they'll hit military bases, and airports.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1124730.pdf
The US defense establishment believes the literal nuclear bombing of cities is an unlikely strategy. Russian first-strike strategy involves the usage of nuclear weapons for their Electromagnetic Pulse generating effects. The ability to destroy electricity delivery, generation, and electronic devices is just as likely to destroy or render ineffective an adversary's ability to respond as outright nuclear holocaust.
This document mentions that the use of high-voltage EMP bursts renders our nuclear arsenal vulnerable- those in silos, those in planes, and those in submarines if they are not sufficiently hardened against these attacks.
The US defense establishment believes the literal nuclear bombing of cities is an unlikely strategy. Russian first-strike strategy involves the usage of nuclear weapons for their Electromagnetic Pulse generating effects. The ability to destroy electricity delivery, generation, and electronic devices is just as likely to destroy or render ineffective an adversary's ability to respond as outright nuclear holocaust.
This document mentions that the use of high-voltage EMP bursts renders our nuclear arsenal vulnerable- those in silos, those in planes, and those in submarines if they are not sufficiently hardened against these attacks.
I am... dubious of the actual danger EMP poses to submarines. If they were surfaced, especially if they were attempting to recieve radio communications, sure. But a submerged submarine would be extremely well shielded.
The real question would be whether a submarine captain would be willing to press the button based on radio silence alone.
The real question would be whether a submarine captain would be willing to press the button based on radio silence alone.
From the report linked, on the threat to communications between submarines and command, and the direct threat to submarines:
>> HEMP Threat To U.S. Submarines?
> HEMP attack could achieve for Russia a key objective the USSR could not achieve during the Cold War—neutralizing U.S. ballistic missile submarines at sea.
> Russian Super-EMP weapons could destroy or degrade U.S. bombers, ICBMs, SSBNs in port and their strategic C3I—including land-based VLF communications systems, TACAMO aircraft, and other redundant means of strategic command and control used to convey Emergency Action Messages (EAMs) to submarines hiding at sea. Severing their communications links to the National Command Authority would neutralize U.S. submarines, rendering them useless.
> HEMP could also be used to attack submarines on patrol at sea directly.
> A high-yield warhead (1 megaton or more) detonated for HEMP over the ocean would cover an area 2,200 kilometers in radius, a zone nearly as large as North America, with powerful E3 HEMP that would penetrate the ocean depths and possibly damage or destroy the electronics of submarines on patrol. Submarines would be especially vulnerable when deploying their very long antennae—which they need to do precisely when trying to receive EAMS.
>> HEMP Threat To U.S. Submarines?
> HEMP attack could achieve for Russia a key objective the USSR could not achieve during the Cold War—neutralizing U.S. ballistic missile submarines at sea.
> Russian Super-EMP weapons could destroy or degrade U.S. bombers, ICBMs, SSBNs in port and their strategic C3I—including land-based VLF communications systems, TACAMO aircraft, and other redundant means of strategic command and control used to convey Emergency Action Messages (EAMs) to submarines hiding at sea. Severing their communications links to the National Command Authority would neutralize U.S. submarines, rendering them useless.
> HEMP could also be used to attack submarines on patrol at sea directly.
> A high-yield warhead (1 megaton or more) detonated for HEMP over the ocean would cover an area 2,200 kilometers in radius, a zone nearly as large as North America, with powerful E3 HEMP that would penetrate the ocean depths and possibly damage or destroy the electronics of submarines on patrol. Submarines would be especially vulnerable when deploying their very long antennae—which they need to do precisely when trying to receive EAMS.
This counts as a dupe because there was a major thread in the last year or so (two, in fact). This is in the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html.
For the curious, some related threads:
Nukemap Is Down - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30516807 - March 2022 (4 comments)
10 Years of Nukemap - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30282649 - Feb 2022 (56 comments)
Nukemap - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29193948 - Nov 2021 (83 comments)
Nukemap - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23365823 - May 2020 (74 comments)
Why Nukemap Isn't on Google Maps Anymore - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21782101 - Dec 2019 (289 comments)
Missilemap - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15113962 - Aug 2017 (50 comments)
Nuke Map: Interactive Nuclear Bomb Map - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14975863 - Aug 2017 (87 comments)
Nuclear detonation visualizer - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14243187 - May 2017 (2 comments)
Mapping the US nuclear war plan for 1956 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11704241 - May 2016 (45 comments)
Nuclear Effects Calculator - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3624714 - Feb 2012 (34 comments)
For the curious, some related threads:
Nukemap Is Down - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30516807 - March 2022 (4 comments)
10 Years of Nukemap - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30282649 - Feb 2022 (56 comments)
Nukemap - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29193948 - Nov 2021 (83 comments)
Nukemap - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23365823 - May 2020 (74 comments)
Why Nukemap Isn't on Google Maps Anymore - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21782101 - Dec 2019 (289 comments)
Missilemap - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15113962 - Aug 2017 (50 comments)
Nuke Map: Interactive Nuclear Bomb Map - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14975863 - Aug 2017 (87 comments)
Nuclear detonation visualizer - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14243187 - May 2017 (2 comments)
Mapping the US nuclear war plan for 1956 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11704241 - May 2016 (45 comments)
Nuclear Effects Calculator - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3624714 - Feb 2012 (34 comments)
In the third ring ("Thermal radiation radius"), my reading of it implies that you have 100% chance of third degree burns. But is that if you are standing outside in the street? I read recently that your chances of survival increase greatly if you stay inside your house with closed doors and windows. Or would the radiation still easily penetrate inside your house?
Largest search trend spike in the past 5 years :(
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&ge...
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&ge...
I guess you better check for "nuclear war":
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=nuclear%...
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=nuclear%...
Interesting. I didn't expect the thermal radiation to be farther away than the blast radius. I would've thought they overlapped. Almost makes it sound like you're most likely to survive a nuclear bomb if you're closer to it than farther away, up to a certain point.
I don't know about nukes, but large conventional bombs have an unintuitive survival distance profile. Something like <10 units away, you die, 10-20 units away, you can survive, 20-30 units away you die, >30 units away you survive.
Why is that?
It has something to do with the pressure wave and how it changes with distance, since I posted that comment I've been looking for more information but I don't know the right terms.
I'm trying to find more information, I know they're was at least one study of a Canadian soldier who survived an explosion inside the radius that he should have died due to the pressure wave.
Why?
Thermal and air blast a lot of people die because of glas shrapnel from bombs when they look at the bombs at their windows.
Is this due to shrapnel?
> most likely to survive a nuclear bomb if you're closer
How so? All of the effects get stronger the closer you get. The thermal radiation gets you the furthest away, but if you're close by, you get the pressure and a much higher level of thermal radiation.
(There is some discussion to be had about the reflected shockwave but if you're close enough for that to matter, it doesn't matter...)
How so? All of the effects get stronger the closer you get. The thermal radiation gets you the furthest away, but if you're close by, you get the pressure and a much higher level of thermal radiation.
(There is some discussion to be had about the reflected shockwave but if you're close enough for that to matter, it doesn't matter...)
Common pet peeve with this site: Most people trying to share a scary screenshot will choose the largest one (Tsar Bomba 100t), of which 1 operation one was ever created, and that one has already been detonated. It's also not at all a practical bomb that would be used in practice.
On the other hand, the RS-28 is the Russian state of the art now, and is probably as deadly as the Tsar, but very practical. However, it is yet to see if it will work as advertised.
I’m not a weapons expert so I DuckDucked RS-28, and apparently it’s a missile not a warhead? Wikipedia says it can have a payload of:
> 10–15 MIRVs[3] Unspecified number of Avangard HGVs
I don’t know how to make use of this information.
> 10–15 MIRVs[3] Unspecified number of Avangard HGVs
I don’t know how to make use of this information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targeta...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targeta...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avangard_(hypersonic_glide_veh...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targeta...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avangard_(hypersonic_glide_veh...
Not what I meant, those were linked directly by the bit of Wikipedia I quoted.
I don’t know the implications of having these as a payload.
What size warheads can be mounted in this particular missile’s MIRV option? Are they typically all warheads or are most decoys? If multiple, are they likely to be redundantly targeting the same location, or is this used to target multiple locations from a single launch? The Wikipedia page on MIRVs basically answers “yes” rather than expanding my intuition for how these are likely to be configured.
The Avangard article specifies warhead payload range, but I have no idea how it’s intended to be used even if the maximum count per missile was not unspecified.
I don’t know the implications of having these as a payload.
What size warheads can be mounted in this particular missile’s MIRV option? Are they typically all warheads or are most decoys? If multiple, are they likely to be redundantly targeting the same location, or is this used to target multiple locations from a single launch? The Wikipedia page on MIRVs basically answers “yes” rather than expanding my intuition for how these are likely to be configured.
The Avangard article specifies warhead payload range, but I have no idea how it’s intended to be used even if the maximum count per missile was not unspecified.
IANANWEONWP, but:
For the number of decoys vs warheads, I /think/ the only real design limit is the throw-weight of the missile and volume of the fairing. This[0] has slightly more information on decoys. The 'it depends' remark is based on the fact that, AFAIK, the choice of decoy:bomb ratio depends on what the attacker thinks they need. Since the US ABM stuff is currently just for very limited strikes, I would guess they wouldn't waste too much space on that. But, they have an option to increase the ratio of decoys:bombs if the US ABM gets denser.
The SS-28 missile has a high throw-weight, in either case; it's replacing the SS-18, which had the record.[1] The wiki page on Russian warheads is mostly filled with 'Unknown model XX megaton warhead', so there's not much detailed info on mass for that side of the equation.
For the Avangard, the advantage that hypersonic vehicles give over a bog-standard ICBM warhread (which themselves travel at hypersonic speeds) is that they're manoeuvrable, so that they can approach a target from an unexpected trajectory . They don't have to fly on a simple arc, and they can change direction, for example, launch from North Korea, fly over the ocean, then attack South Korea from the west. A couple places I heard them discussed was on The Diplomat's podcast[2], and a CFR podcast[3].
One last thing, if you need more things to not think about: FOBS, which poses a similar threat as hypersonics.
Edit: one last last thing: One way to think about decoys/hypersonics/etc is that they are, in a backwards way, a good thing, since they /re establish/ mutually assured destruction. Without MAD, the whole situation becomes more unstable.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penetration_aid [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-36_(missile)#R-36M_(SS-18) [2] https://thediplomat.com/2021/10/the-inter-korean-missile-rac... [3] https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hyperventilating-over-... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment...
* I am not a nuclear weapons engineer or nuclear war planner
For the number of decoys vs warheads, I /think/ the only real design limit is the throw-weight of the missile and volume of the fairing. This[0] has slightly more information on decoys. The 'it depends' remark is based on the fact that, AFAIK, the choice of decoy:bomb ratio depends on what the attacker thinks they need. Since the US ABM stuff is currently just for very limited strikes, I would guess they wouldn't waste too much space on that. But, they have an option to increase the ratio of decoys:bombs if the US ABM gets denser.
The SS-28 missile has a high throw-weight, in either case; it's replacing the SS-18, which had the record.[1] The wiki page on Russian warheads is mostly filled with 'Unknown model XX megaton warhead', so there's not much detailed info on mass for that side of the equation.
For the Avangard, the advantage that hypersonic vehicles give over a bog-standard ICBM warhread (which themselves travel at hypersonic speeds) is that they're manoeuvrable, so that they can approach a target from an unexpected trajectory . They don't have to fly on a simple arc, and they can change direction, for example, launch from North Korea, fly over the ocean, then attack South Korea from the west. A couple places I heard them discussed was on The Diplomat's podcast[2], and a CFR podcast[3].
One last thing, if you need more things to not think about: FOBS, which poses a similar threat as hypersonics.
Edit: one last last thing: One way to think about decoys/hypersonics/etc is that they are, in a backwards way, a good thing, since they /re establish/ mutually assured destruction. Without MAD, the whole situation becomes more unstable.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penetration_aid [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-36_(missile)#R-36M_(SS-18) [2] https://thediplomat.com/2021/10/the-inter-korean-missile-rac... [3] https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hyperventilating-over-... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment...
* I am not a nuclear weapons engineer or nuclear war planner
Thanks :)
Because I looked it up, you are correct: 50Mt total yield (across all the MIRVs), which is indeed the same as the Tsar, with benefit of carpeting an area rather than a single big ka-boom.
It was supposed to be test launched (hopefully not with real warheads!) in 2022. So it's unlikely it will matter if there's nuclear war this year.
I'm really not sure this gives Russia any advantage over the US though, or over what it's replacing. There's already enough nukes to obliterate both sides, no? Just launch more of the existing ones.
It was supposed to be test launched (hopefully not with real warheads!) in 2022. So it's unlikely it will matter if there's nuclear war this year.
I'm really not sure this gives Russia any advantage over the US though, or over what it's replacing. There's already enough nukes to obliterate both sides, no? Just launch more of the existing ones.
Unless the site broke there wasn't much smaller a radius when I selected that one vs. a 5t one.
The difference when dropping it on Brussels is 3rd degree burns over half of Belgium (26000 km²) vs. just a bit further than Brussels' suburbs (2000 km²).
That's something like 8 million people directly affected vs. 2 million people, which seems quite significant.
That's something like 8 million people directly affected vs. 2 million people, which seems quite significant.
Terrifying
I live 10 minutes from the White House. I don’t need this in my life.
I don't know how much of what I saw online was Ukraine propaganda.
But the Russian military seems to be in bad shape. Almost nothing of the new stuff they paraded all these years is used in Ukraine.
Some people argued that it's a smart ploy, others say they simply don't have the technology in amounts that are enough for a war.
It makes me think, how many nukes does Russia actually have? How many are usable? How many are "high tech" enough so they can't be intercepted?
But the Russian military seems to be in bad shape. Almost nothing of the new stuff they paraded all these years is used in Ukraine.
Some people argued that it's a smart ploy, others say they simply don't have the technology in amounts that are enough for a war.
It makes me think, how many nukes does Russia actually have? How many are usable? How many are "high tech" enough so they can't be intercepted?
ICBM's cannot be reliably intercepted. 95% of them will get through. Russia has > 300 ICBMS ready to go.
Most of the Russian nukes are likely to be usable, especially the SLBMs. Even when the Russian economy collapsed and their conventional forces fell apart they still managed to scrape together enough funding for their nuclear forces.
Our current ability to intercept Russian ballistic missiles is extremely limited. We might get a few at most. There just aren't many interceptors deployed.
Our current ability to intercept Russian ballistic missiles is extremely limited. We might get a few at most. There just aren't many interceptors deployed.
It is very much possible that they are "going easy" on Ukraine. Unlike the western media reports, they are clearly targeting strategic locations to bomb( with some civilian casualties ) and they are not advancing faster than they could.
To summarise, They may not be in bad shape, they seem to be reluctant to use force against their neighbour.
To summarise, They may not be in bad shape, they seem to be reluctant to use force against their neighbour.
> It is very much possible that they are "going easy" on Ukraine.
They have been (I mean, aside from the deliberate atrocities) but not, I think, intentionally. Ironically, I think it is because Putin’s claims of closeness of the Russian and Ukrainian people aren't wrong, and the Russian conscripts largely shoved into this war don't really have any desire to kill Ukrainian’s for Putin’s murky purposes.
That's why they begged Kazakhstan for troops, why they sent Chechen kill squads after Zelenskyy, why they are now recruiting in Syria, etc. The material condition of the Russian Army isn't great, but the human component doesn't seem particularly enthusiastic about the war, either.
They have been (I mean, aside from the deliberate atrocities) but not, I think, intentionally. Ironically, I think it is because Putin’s claims of closeness of the Russian and Ukrainian people aren't wrong, and the Russian conscripts largely shoved into this war don't really have any desire to kill Ukrainian’s for Putin’s murky purposes.
That's why they begged Kazakhstan for troops, why they sent Chechen kill squads after Zelenskyy, why they are now recruiting in Syria, etc. The material condition of the Russian Army isn't great, but the human component doesn't seem particularly enthusiastic about the war, either.
I’m pretty convinced that they’re sandbagging to see what happens and how little they can try to get what they want. They’re definitely playing mental games with the rest of the world. What’s much less clear to me is what the actual goal is and what the state of their country will be once it’s settled. Gain Ukraine, lose connection to the rest of the world and most foreign trade, plus put your citizens through hell…it makes me think that the plan must be much bigger to make this “worth it”, assuming we’re dealing with a rational actor.
There were leaked documents of their plan. They expected it to be a 15 day exercise to take Ukraine. The pushback they have received from the entire world was unexpected. I'm not sure of their plans either, but you can be sure that the current events were not their plans. (Or maybe not so sure if everything is propaganda, but this doesn't seem like a well planned effort by any measure.)
They've already had thousands of casualities, including two generals and other high-ranking officials[0]. I wouldn't say they are playing mental games with the rest of the world. It doesn't even look like China, supposedly their number one ally, is on board with all of this[1]
Clearly, Russia's army is having a lot of problems, and Putin is not that mastermind that some media segments claim him to be.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/08/vitaly-gerasim...
[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/russia-sa...
Clearly, Russia's army is having a lot of problems, and Putin is not that mastermind that some media segments claim him to be.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/08/vitaly-gerasim...
[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/russia-sa...
I guess all it takes is one
[deleted]
Reminds me of the old PC game Scorched Earth with nukes, baby nukes, and MIRVs.
Not that bad? Looks like it would require a bunch of bombs to really annihilate the human race. Just don't live in NYC I guess.
I imagine having access to the user analytics of this site is one of the most anxiety-inducing states of being known to man.
You don't know where the incoming ICBMs are targeted... Beau offers a much simpler way to think about this and plan ahead that could save your life
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox8ZDbCNTCE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox8ZDbCNTCE
I don't know who this guy is or what his channel is about but that seemed like a genuinely insightful video, thanks.
What a sweet guy and a clear communicator. He should be training our public health officials in communication.
I assume we'd be looking at a Topol SS-25 missile type attack from Russia? For a city such as Boston, are we only looking at a single strike, or does the doctrine call for multiple warheads per city/metro area?
For Boston at least you only have to be 7-8 miles from ground zero to avoid most of the damage and due to the prevailing winds, most of the fallout (from a ground strike) would be towards the north east (an airburst doesn't seem to produce any appreciable fallout).
For Boston at least you only have to be 7-8 miles from ground zero to avoid most of the damage and due to the prevailing winds, most of the fallout (from a ground strike) would be towards the north east (an airburst doesn't seem to produce any appreciable fallout).
> are we only looking at a single strike
I like the "only" part :). But in any case, the US and Russia both (by treaty) have about 1500 nuclear weapons ready to use. I'm guessing Boston would get more than one.
I like the "only" part :). But in any case, the US and Russia both (by treaty) have about 1500 nuclear weapons ready to use. I'm guessing Boston would get more than one.
I remember hearing that, back in the bad old days of (first) cold war, there was a perverse kind of civic pride about being on the presumed target list. If your city was going to be nuked, then it had to be important.
I would love if this was designed to take into account elevation data so you could figure out what areas would be shadowed by natural structures like hills.
For example, I'm in Seattle, but on the East side and I expect to be fully shielded from a surface detonation in downtown and to be mostly shielded from air detonation depending on the altitude.
Speaking of air detonations, what altitudes are most nuclear missiles designed to detonate at?
For example, I'm in Seattle, but on the East side and I expect to be fully shielded from a surface detonation in downtown and to be mostly shielded from air detonation depending on the altitude.
Speaking of air detonations, what altitudes are most nuclear missiles designed to detonate at?
Airburst height varies based on warhead size. Bigger the bomb, the higher the damage-maximizing airburst altitude.
And don't be entirely confident about where a bomb would be detonated. Nearby explosions can push a reentry vehicle off course. (RVs can't maneuver, so it can't adjust course when pushed. Not that there's a lot of time to steer at Mach 23.) Maximum accuracy requires GNSS satellites to be intact and the RV to be able to hear them, neither of which may be true in a full nuclear exchange.
And don't be entirely confident about where a bomb would be detonated. Nearby explosions can push a reentry vehicle off course. (RVs can't maneuver, so it can't adjust course when pushed. Not that there's a lot of time to steer at Mach 23.) Maximum accuracy requires GNSS satellites to be intact and the RV to be able to hear them, neither of which may be true in a full nuclear exchange.
Is there a feature that counts the most popular targets people are testing against, not as though we were going to vote on them but say, Portland, as an example selected completely at random, e.g. which are the most popular places of interest for assessing the impact of a nuclear strike and how sure they can be of its effects?
The Russians don't have nukes.
The only reason to keep nukes in your arsenal is for deterrence. Now, bear with me on this - you don't need to have functional nukes for deterrence, just pretend they are in working order. Now, in a corrupt kleptocratic organization like the Russian armed forces, what stops the people at the top to steal as much as possible when those weapons are not supposed to be ever used?
The only reason to keep nukes in your arsenal is for deterrence. Now, bear with me on this - you don't need to have functional nukes for deterrence, just pretend they are in working order. Now, in a corrupt kleptocratic organization like the Russian armed forces, what stops the people at the top to steal as much as possible when those weapons are not supposed to be ever used?
I agree completely, except for the part where you are 100% sure they don't have any (working) nukes.
I think it's possible, even likely that their nuclear arsenal is in shambles and much is non-functional.
A cash-strapped regime like Russia has surely made the same observation as you and realized that they can reap all of the deterrence benefits without actually spending any money to maintain nuclear readiness.
Unlike you, I do think it's likely that at least some of their arsenal is functional. Perhaps it's not the full "turn the US into a parking lot" array they'd like others to think they have, but I find it hard to believe they have none.
I think it's possible, even likely that their nuclear arsenal is in shambles and much is non-functional.
A cash-strapped regime like Russia has surely made the same observation as you and realized that they can reap all of the deterrence benefits without actually spending any money to maintain nuclear readiness.
Unlike you, I do think it's likely that at least some of their arsenal is functional. Perhaps it's not the full "turn the US into a parking lot" array they'd like others to think they have, but I find it hard to believe they have none.
I don't think they have nukes. At the same time I don't think we should risk WW3 to find out either.
Because if there's a full-scale nuclear war, if the Russians only target the center of my city, I probably have a chance of surviving. However if they target the civilian airport (where there's also a small ANG presence) or use multiple warheads for the metro area, I'll probably be vaporized.
Obviously I know no one posting here can answer definitively, since I'm asking about some of the toppest of top secret stuff.